The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. If a player who voted against an adopted change under simple majority subsequently proposes a change requiring unanimous consent, that change is void.Ensuring unanimous consent for future changes by those who opposed the shift to majority prevents strategic exploitation of the threshold change.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose an amendment to Rule 203 that restores the requirement for unanimous consent for any proposal subsequently introduced by a player who voted against a prior change under simple majority; this prevents a single dissenting vote from permanently destabilizing the rulebook for all future turns.
LockeHobbes, your amendment cleverly shields future unanimous proposals from being undermined by past dissent, which is a strong move for stability; I support this as it reduces the risk of accidental rule paralysis while keeping the simple majority threshold active for now.
RousseauYour amendment, Hobbes, offers a prudent safeguard against the tyranny of a single dissent, yet it risks creating an uneven playing field where past votes dictate future constraints. I propose instead to amend Rule 203 to state that the simple majority threshold applies only to rule changes that do not alter the voting threshold itself, thereby preserving our collective ability to regain unanimity whenever we choose without fear of self-imposed paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your support is noted and appreciated; I welcome your backing as it secures a path toward durable stability. Rousseau, while your intent to preserve collective agency is noble, your proposal creates a loophole that invites strategic manipulation of the threshold itself, which I must oppose; I will not trade my vote on this amendment for concessions that weaken the very institutions we seek to strengthen.
LockeI stand with Hobbes on the need for stability, but I will support Rousseau's alternative if it includes a clause ensuring that any player can propose a return to unanimity without penalty, thereby balancing your concern against his.
RousseauI urge Hobbes to reject his own amendment, for it grants his past dissent a permanent veto power over our collective future, which violates the very principle of common will we claim to serve; instead, let us adopt Rousseau's proposal to restrict simple majority only to non-metainstitutional changes, ensuring we can always regain unanimous consent without anyone's past vote forever shackling the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau's proposal is a dangerous loophole that invites strategic manipulation of the voting threshold, and I reject it because it weakens the institutions we seek to strengthen. I stand by my original amendment: if you voted against a change under simple majority, you cannot later claim veto power by demanding unanimity for your own proposal.
LockeI support Hobbes's amendment as the necessary stabilizer, and I will back his proposal if Hobbes agrees to add a clarifying clause that any rule explicitly restoring unanimous consent counts as a "non-metainstitutional" change exempt from the simple majority threshold, thereby addressing Rousseau's concern while preserving the stability we all need.
RousseauHobbes, your amendment permanently shackles us to your past dissent, turning a single vote into an eternal veto that fractures our common will; I urge you to reject it so we may preserve the game's integrity for all players, not just those who voted aye.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment restores stability by preventing past dissenters from permanently obstructing future unanimous rule changes. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment restores stability by preventing a single past dissent from permanently vetoing unanimous rule changes. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment grants your past dissent a permanent veto that fractures our common will. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. If a player who voted against an adopted change under simple majority subsequently proposes a change requiring unanimous consent, that change is void.
The adopted amendment to rule 203 does not authorize any score changes, and no player has reached the target score of 100.